Current State of 40k?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Zingraff**

I had a long hiatus from 40k before I returned 3 years ago. I've never played 4th or 5th edition, but what we have now, I find to be better than back in 3rd. I've played Imperial Guard, and variants the entire time, and in 3rd edition, IG tended to be static and get murdered all the time, because moving somehow made my troops even more vulnerable.

Sure the rules now are bloated to the point of being nearly unreadable. And the rulebooks I need at hand to field my army, could fill a book case, and carrying them around often weighs more than my all resin army. I'm not a huge fan of unfluffy and exploitative allies either, and 40k is clearly in need of 30k style LoW restrictions to reign in abuse.

But as long as I avoid facing WAAC-types, I'm having more fun with 40k than I had 10-15 years ago.

Also, True Line of Sight is completely bonkers.

**Vaktathi**

WayneTheGame wrote:

How on earth someone like you would play a historical game is beyond me, you'd field a unrealistic army in a battle just because the rules didn't restrict you from not doing it.

Historical scenarios typically dictate what forces will be present, and prebuild armies for the players either entirely or in part in most cases. For historical based games like Flames of War, they absolutely have force composition rules and points costs.

There's a reason for that, and it's because common sense isnt as common as it's made out to be, and people have wildly varying ideas as to what "reasonable" means.

**Selym**

Zingraff wrote:

Also, True Line of Sight is completely bonkers.

How? If my dude can see your dude, can he not shoot? If my dude can't see your dude, is the opposite true?

**Gen.Steiner**

Selym wrote:
Zingraff wrote:

Also, True Line of Sight is completely bonkers.
How? If my dude can see your dude, can he not shoot? If my dude can't see your dude, is the opposite true?

Speaking from experience, undergrowth, trees, and other scattered terrain is very good at rapidly making people disappear from view. However, on the tabletop, although I am stood behind a wood, because it has only four model trees in it, you can shoot all the way through the wood and kill me.

I preferred the way it used to be dealt with - if you were within 6" of the edge of area terrain, you could be seen. If you were on the other side of area terrain, LoS was blocked. It also prevents hilariously accurate sniper shots through four buildings and a park with a lascannon.

**Azreal13**

Certainly gunline armies and some of the more OP shooting units would be mitigated if it were

a) easier to deny LOS

and

b) cover which still gave LOS reduced incoming fire, rather than conferring an often inferior Armour save.

**Vaktathi**

I generally dont mind TLoS so much in concept, but really it's just not appropriate for the scale at which 40k is played at. For a 750pt game with 50 models, TLoS can work fine and be cinematic and all that. At 2000pts trying to judge LoS and cover saves for 130 models , or when dealing with stuff like Baneblade's or Knights, it starts to break down.

Scale issues are a consistent problem with 40k in general.

**Gen.Steiner**

Since 3rd Edition, 40K has been a Company Plus size game, where really even a 1500 point army represents something roughly the size of an Infantry Company (or equivalent in combat strength).

Trying to apply skirmish rules to that size of game is silly.

Things like TLoS are daft, because actually it's much better to get some abstraction in when dealing with area terrain, partly because people's terrain collections are so varied, and partly because it reflects reality much better!

**Ashiraya**

It is often awfully awkward to determine LoS as well and we very often have to roll 50-50s when it is unclear if enough of the model can be seen or only antennae/weapons/banners etc. are visible.

**Elbows**

True line of sight is always a risky proposition for a wargame, particularly if you have models inside buildings or a heavily built-up table. It is also the easiest point to start an argument between immature players.

There is a reason why area terrain is a better game concept. An area is just that, something delineated by the base it's mounted on etc. It's a far better method for most games.

**AnomanderRake**

Elbows wrote:
True line of sight is always a risky proposition for a wargame, particularly if you have models inside buildings or a heavily built-up table. It is also the easiest point to start an argument between immature players.

There is a reason why area terrain is a better game concept. An area is just that, something delineated by the base it's mounted on etc. It's a far better method for most games.

It's also harder to define, constrains terrain-building creativity, and makes the 40k players point and snigger at the Warmachine games over 2d battlefields.

There are pros and cons to both approaches, but when you're playing something as loosely written as 40k it's not that risky a proposition.

**Peregrine**

Selym wrote:
How? If my dude can see your dude, can he not shoot? If my dude can't see your dude, is the opposite true?

The problem is that TLOS makes no sense at all. It assumes that the models are static in their poses, so if one fingertip of a model is visible behind five different pieces of terrain you can shoot with only a 4+/5+ cover save even though in reality that outstretched finger wouldn't be a static target. Or a crouching model might not be able to shoot over a low wall, even though a real soldier could clearly just stand up when necessary. And it very easily leads to arguments about whether or not 0.01" of a model is visible, where changing your point of view even slightly gives you a different answer. Abstracted LOS, on the other hand, acknowledges that the static miniatures and terrain on the table are just a symbolic representation of the "real" battle and avoids these problems entirely.

**Zingraff**

What Peregrine wrote, basically. In 40k the models essentially only represent where the individuals are located, and how they're equipped.

With True Line of Sight, a character model on a scenic base is going to be more vulnerable, because the scenic base makes him more exposed. Or maybe he's waving a sword above his head. True Line of Sight presumes the character model not only dragged his scenic base around with him, but also kept his arm above his head the whole time.

Area terrain, and models defined as abstractions of the individuals they represent; are much cleaner and unambiguous game mechanics.

Furthermore, area terrain could easily work in three dimensions. When you're at a certain elevation; for example on board a Knight, or on the second floor of a building, nearby terrain features lower than your altitude, could simply be ignored and would not block LOS. Easy as that.

**Elbows**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Elbows wrote:
True line of sight is always a risky proposition for a wargame, particularly if you have models inside buildings or a heavily built-up table. It is also the easiest point to start an argument between immature players.

There is a reason why area terrain is a better game concept. An area is just that, something delineated by the base it's mounted on etc. It's a far better method for most games.

It's also harder to define, constrains terrain-building creativity, and makes the 40k players point and snigger at the Warmachine games over 2d battlefields.

There are pros and cons to both approaches, but when you're playing something as loosely written as 40k it's not that risky a proposition.

You're right...it's just a crappy proposition.

**AnomanderRake**

Elbows wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Elbows wrote:
True line of sight is always a risky proposition for a wargame, particularly if you have models inside buildings or a heavily built-up table. It is also the easiest point to start an argument between immature players.

There is a reason why area terrain is a better game concept. An area is just that, something delineated by the base it's mounted on etc. It's a far better method for most games.

It's also harder to define, constrains terrain-building creativity, and makes the 40k players point and snigger at the Warmachine games over 2d battlefields.

There are pros and cons to both approaches, but when you're playing something as loosely written as 40k it's not that risky a proposition.

You're right...it's just a crappy proposition.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It's almost like trying to represent grandiose fast-paced sci-fi warfare with fixed-pose models on a physical table requires some level of abstraction.

**Elbows**

All I see in modern 40K forums is people gnashing their teeth constantly about meta, about power levels, codices, inconsistent rules etc. While GW doesn't claim to produce a tournament-friendly rule set, that seems to be the overwhelming crowd of people who are adamant about rules lawyering and ultra-precise rules.

If that's the audience, than area terrain is a far better idea. That's the much easier concept to install to minimize bickering and arguments.

The games I design and sell are based around both concepts but in the end, everything is left to the players. That of course is a simple benefit of producing a fun skirmish game vs. a giant competitive game consumed by thousands of players. In a perfect world you simply discuss anything with your opponent and come to amicable agreement.

Sadly I've never witnessed more immature arguments than in the 40K/Warmahordes crowd of gamers - and I don't mean that as a slight to the forum, it just attracts more teenage kids who think 40K is an excellent dick measuring device.

For the crowd I see online/in stores...area terrain would be my choice all day long.

**adamsouza**

40K has both currently. If you look at the terrain dataslates in th back of the BRB, they pertty much all give cover to anyone on the terrain, reguardless of LOS.

The problem often comes from not agreeing before a game what terrain offers that. Then the ineviatable arguments that result from the defending player wanting the save, and the attacking player not wanting to grant the save.

Forest terrain, in particular, needs the abstraction. If you model is densely enough to be appropriate, you can't move models through it. If you model forensts with enough open space to move models through it, it provides no real LOS blocking ability.

**Leth**

I have a lot of.fun and appreciate all the options. However it lends itself to being uunbalanced.

I think as long a you have a like minded group it will be a fun time.

**Zingraff**

In my opinion, precise, unambiguous rules are always preferable. They remove uncertainty, make the game flow more smoothly, reduce unnecessary stress and conflict between the opponents, and they might rein in the sort of loophole abuse we're constantly seeing with the current edition of 40k.

I'm by no means a rules lawyer, but I'm also a board game veteran, and the 40k rulebooks compare rather unfavourably with the standards I've come to expect from the other games I collect and play.

Ambiguous rules are fine as long as everyone wants the same things, but 40k is a conflict simulator and you need an objective set of rules, not a system open for interpretation. "Forging the Narrative" as it was used in 6th edition, was awful and only served to highlight appallingly bad rules writing.

**Gen.Steiner**

Zingraff wrote:
In my opinion, precise, unambiguous rules are always preferable.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

**zerosignal**

GW just don't want to spend any time/money on development and testing, which is pretty shoddy for a GAMES workshop...

As long as both players are on the same page, the game is pretty fun. I had a great time last sunday playing 1850pts Imperial Fists vs. Tyranids with my housemate. He wanted to try out the Endless Swarm formation, I had a CAD with some fun stuff like Assault Terminators in a Land Raider, Bikes, TFC, Stormtalons etc. and Devastators in a bunker. 8 hours give or take, with a lot of hilarious moments...

I lost because my bike captain warlord rode headfirst into a building and died >_<

**koooaei**

Elbows wrote:
True line of sight is always a risky proposition for a wargame, particularly if you have models inside buildings or a heavily built-up table. It is also the easiest point to start an argument between immature players.

There is a reason why area terrain is a better game concept. An area is just that, something delineated by the base it's mounted on etc. It's a far better method for most games.

GW has prepared for any outcome by giving sm ability to ignore both los and cover. For 1 warpcharge. Even if they go back to area terrain blocking los, sm can just easilly stand behind a 1-tree wood terrain and kill you without you "seeing" them. So, the game will be fine because 80% play marines. And the rest will just buy marines and the game will be fine as everyone will ignore los. No los, no problems.

**Martel732**

Counting on a random psychic power is never a good plan. At least, if you need it to function.

**Selym**

Martel732 wrote:
Counting on a random psychic power is never a good plan. At least, if you need it to function.

It is if you bring Tigurius and/or a Conclave.

**kpatterson14206**

As somebody who contemplates coming back to 40k after having left near the tail end of 5th edition. Threads like this make me so sad.

I want to love the game, the nostalgia factor is incredible. When I look at games other people say is just better/cheaper I just can't get them. I look at Warmachine models in stores and I know in my brain the game is more balanced, cheaper, and better designed ruleset.

But it's just not there, the spark that gets my imagination going. And now I'm too old for that to take hold.

Warhammer still does it for me, and I fething hate it. Anytime I try to come back to the game I love, I can't even make a fething army list in under two hours. Formations? Allies? What happened to the simple to understand TOC?

Why do I have to flip to four different pages to create a simple unit of space marines in an army list? Who the hell wrties these things? Do the people who decide how many points unit cost even play the damn game?

Also, why does everybody fething play Space Marines? Anytime I try to buy a second hand army I get about 500 Space Marine players and 6 dudes selling OOP Dark Eldar stuff.

/rant

**adamsouza**

Honestly, I feel that most of the people sad about 7th are people who still wish it was 5th.

Space Marines are the most Iconic, they are top tier, and they are actually probably one of the most affordable armies to play. They also come in literally every 40K starter set, so most 40K players have some.

**Vaktathi**

Personally, I think 5th was probably the best core rule set we've had, but dont really wish to go back so much as I'd really just like to see a reboot. 5E had a lot of major problems and was far from perfect (Kill Points, Defensive Weapon rules, wound allocation, transports ignoring too many damage results, 4+ cover on everything, and gobs of codex balance issues, etc), it was just much easier and less time consuming to play, with wayyy fewer scale and balance issues.

But really, I'd much rather see a new rebooted ruleset than go back to 5th. 40K in it's 7E form is really trying to be 4 or 5 different games in one, and doing none of them even remotely well at all.

**Deadnight**

kpatterson14206 wrote:

I want to love the game, the nostalgia factor is incredible. When I look at games other people say is just better/cheaper I just can't get them. I look at Warmachine models in stores and I know in my brain the game is more balanced, cheaper, and better designed ruleset.

But it's just not there, the spark that gets my imagination going. And now I'm too old for that to take hold.

Off topic:

Read the lore. If you need world building as a hook, then dive into the iron kingdoms rpg material, whether it's the new books, or if you can find (real, or on the interwebs) the old D20 rpg material. When I got the wargaming bug again at the start of 40k fifth ed/ warmachine mk2, I still remember thinking how I knew straight away that 40k wasn't the game for me. Warmachine though? Well, if I wasgonna get into it, I'm gonna do it properly and dive into the lore. And holy heck, but the lore didn't disappoint. Genuinely brilliant hidden gem. They've been writing for fifteen years now - the setting is now mature, and loaded with plenty of grit, depth and character. It has plenty for your imagination. Take it from someone who walked down that same road.

On topic: more than ever before, 40k is 'what you make of it'. The era of wanting/expecting a gsming ecosystem comprising blind match ups and expecting them to be fair is over, if it's ever existed. More than ever before, 40k requires the 'negotiation phase' , and a bit of pre-planning, co-operation and organisation to act as a shock absorber. It can work, if you are willing to put the work in, and collaborate in terms of 'game building'. If that amounts to too much trouble, and/or is not worth the effort, then 40k is probably not the game you want to be playing.

**Zingraff**

You'll have to find a group of regular opponents who shares your mindset, if you prefer collecting and fielding proper, thematic armies. The pickup game scene where you live, is likely dominated by WAAC-type players, with their armies composed of unnatural allies, super friends, LoW, and all sorts of absurd, non-canon garbage.

The background and the atmosphere is still there, and the quality of the models tend to be higher than ever before. I don't think you'll have much difficulty finding opponents who share your sentiments.

Whenever I feel I have to explain my armies to non-gamers, I'll compare them to the sort of model railway my friend's dad had in his basement. I will tell them that my armies are essentially modelling projects, in that I spend a lot of time planning, building and painting my models, but every so often I will play games with them. And the rules are what animates my models, in the same way turning on the electricity will power a model railway.

I'm not an inferior player either, I reckon I win 60% of the games I play, and I play Imperial Guard, - but in it's current form, 40k is not a particularly good game. Yet, unlike most of my tactical boardgames (which are all better designed than 40k), 40k is so much more than a mere game. I still find that playing the game using my army is really enjoyable, even if the game mechanics are atrocious.

**Runic**

Play people who agree to match you with lists of equal power and talk about it beforehand. In tournaments, expect anything and go in understanding that.

Alternatively, bang your head against a ferrocrete wall and expect balanced pick up games without discussing anything beforehand and vent on the forums when you get wrecked.

That's pretty much it.

**Mental Surge**

Backspacehacker wrote:
I think a large part of the problem extends from that fact that GW does not understand that new editions of rules are not meant to be, HEY LETS REWRITE EVERYTHING! and should be more of, hey lets fix what was not working in the last editions and accommodate for the new gak we made.

Case in point Vehicles. Tanks and such worked fine in 5th ed, the only thing with it needing a bit of a tweak would be the issue rhinos had where you could not kill them. But then here comes HP and the disaster that is.

Mini rant

IMO GW or at least the last CEO had his head up his gak hole, and utterly destroyed the rules, the new guy seems to be trying to bring it back. Hell i play with one of the old guys, been in the hobby since it launched and even he told me i have to remember some times this game is not what it was 5 years ago. Back when you HAD to follow the CAD. Back when the only time you saw a formation was in Apoc games.

The problem is now, GW tried to accomodate all those people who wanted to use the super cool toys, IE Super heavy walkers, or GMC or MC, in the game, but did not want to either A) play an apoc because they did not want to make the army, or B) Did not want to pay for it. As a result we have standard games (2000 pts below imo) that can field D weapons, massive amounts of AP 2, and other shananaganeries.

If GW wants to fix it they need to change a few things, and even i admit this would effect me:
-Trim core rules down, like AoS
-Make formations cost extra points, like unit cost + 100 pts for the formation
-Get rid of the D on the field, or make it so its D-2.
-Pump the breaks on the amount of near infinite range AP 2 and 1 weapons.

Sorry mini rant over. I just get annoyed when GW tried to turn standard games into Apoc style games.

I'll admit that as a Tau and Necron player it is very hard for me to sympathize with all the people that say 5th edition was good, because that was certainly my most hated edition ever. Especially when I played Necrons where it was almost impossible to destroy a vehicle.